[sustran] Re: 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd

[Morten Lange]

Hi Ron,

I was thinking of replying to the video post and the "get visible / luminous crusade" with a bit of praise for an ambitious and fun video, but also with arguments very roughly in the direction that Todd went.

I think you both have soma valid points. But if we could get a bit more solid basis for the arguments of the two "sides", that could be interesting. Hand-waving has its place, but solid arguments are better.  ( Correct me if I'm wrong - I am beeing sincere here )


Ron, you wrote :
"...the odd approach that British cycling groups took in opposing daytime running lights for cars."

Do you think throwing emotional distance between yourself and "them" improves your argument ?

Incidentally the European Cyclists' Federation took a very similar stance, in opposing such requirements ath the EU-level (European Union).  Perhaps the major argument was that the potential detrimental effects on cyclist and pedestrians safety had not been duly considered in the process within the EU.

(By the way The ECF represents the major utility cycling organisations in about 80% ( my guestimate) of the European countries( EU nations and other countries as well)

What put me most off was the scaremongering opening sentence in your post where you advertised the video ( Get Visible or get hurt ), and now you repeat the same stuff again.

Issuing statements like
  "But as a practical matter I would rather be  bright and 
  alive than minimally legal and dead.",
does more to arouse negative feelings than to further the debate.

I hope I am not further stirring up feelings of animosity here.  Perhaps to provide some balance, I will mention that I feel Todd could have been a bit more friendly / less provocative in his post as well.


But let me pit forward something on the constructive side, regarding where you, Ron, and I, and perhaps Todd, might agree :

I think shops should be mandated to always sell adequate lights and reflectors with every bike, and include it in the price.  Exemptions  should be made only when customers can provide a really good reason, like show the light they are going to use, or a testimony that the bike is for he exclusive use far from any traffic, and in broad daylight. ( Some people will always cheat, but they will know they have cheated )

Another thing is that the industry need to so better on quality and durability.  Perhaps the lights could be more integrated and /or more hardy (shock-resistant etc). And put dynamos in with the bearings of the front wheel on many more models than today.

The Danish authorities have promoted a model that uses magnets fastened to the spokes, and lights that produce electricity and hence lights directly where the magnets pass, without any cabling.  They produce flashing lights aft and fore, and store up energy to provide lights some minutes while stationary.


Best Regards,
Morten

P.S:

Being very visible is OK for those who would otherwise not dear to bike at night. And I guess when training groups of cyclists on-street. 

But we cycling advocates should be very careful in joining in with the fearmongering choirs. There are way too many of them already. The scaremongering choirs both scare people away from cycling and give  car-centric and bike sceptic people a push they don´t need.  Reducing cycling is in itself very likely to reduce overall traffic safety.  Todd Litman recently sent material to the WorldTransport Forum list about the new paradigm in traffic safety which says just that, and that reducing driven kilometres by cars is one of the best measures for traffic safety.

See e.g.  : http://www.planetizen.com/node/36138

P.S2
To repeat :
The video we debate here is this one :
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE
( Better quality higher bandwidth version available elsewhere)


--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Ron Richings <richings at telus.net> wrote:

> From: Ron Richings <richings at telus.net>
> Subject: [sustran] 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Date: Thursday, 20 November, 2008, 8:15 PM
> Hi Todd
> 
> 
> I am not one of the makers of the video, but I do have a
> couple of seconds
> of face time in it.
> 
> I don't think that the message is confused at all. 
> Visible is safer than
> invisible, and there are many ways to make yourself seen.
> 
> As a cyclist and driver, every time that I see (barely and
> usually at the
> last minute) a person riding a bike at night with no light
> nor reflective
> material, and often wearing dark clothes, I get cranky and
> wonder -- WHY ??
> 
> Aside from its Darwinian value in 'thinning the
> herd' of cyclists too dumb
> to survive, there is little to recommend invisibility at
> night.
> 
> If the video gets even a few of those cyclists to change
> their ways, it will
> have done a useful job.
> 
> Too much visibility?  A bit hard to imagine in reality.  Of
> course parts of
> the video are 'over the top'.  We don't really
> expect people to wear
> brightly reflective shorts.  And most wouldn't look
> nearly as good in them
> as the B:C:Clettes do.
> 
> Beyond what you describe as the legal minimum, when I ride
> at night you
> would see:
> 
> 	A bright yellow jacket with retro-reflective strips on the
> front,
> back, and arms.
> 
> 	A silver helmet with retro-reflective strips visible from
> all
> angles.
> 
> 	On my recumbent bike, several retro-reflective strips on
> the frame,
> fenders, mirror backs, 	rear bag, and in some circumstances
> reflective
> material on the pole and body of a rear flag 	arrangement
> that rises to
> three feet above my head. I may also put a couple of small
> blinkies 	at
> the top of the pole.
> 
> Too much?  Am I endangering other cyclists ?   I don't
> think so.
> 
> There was a similar line of peculiar argument used to
> justify the odd
> approach that British cycling groups took in opposing
> daytime running lights
> for cars.  Since the cars would be more visible, then
> cyclists and others
> will be comparatively less visible, so running lights
> should not be used.
> 
> As someone who lives in a country where such running lights
> have been
> standard for over 20 years, their contribution to safety
> vastly exceeds any
> drawbacks that they may have.  Being able to see a car
> approaching on a
> rainy, dull, winter afternoon makes me safer.  And of
> course those running
> lights very effectively 'light up' the
> retro-reflective strips that many
> cyclists have on their bikes and clothing.
> 
> Many car drivers are notably inattentive, particular at
> night.  If they are
> to have any chance of avoiding you, they first have to see
> you.  And of
> course if I am to avoid other cyclists, I too have to see
> them.
> 
> And if a cyclist feels that is not enough, then a couple of
> inexpensive LED
> blinkies will make them considerably more visible.
> 
> Does this endanger cyclists who have no lights and minimal
> reflectors while
> riding a dark bicycle and wearing dark clothes?  I
> don't think so - that
> really rests with them.
> 
> Certainly none of this changes the motorist's legal
> obligation to pay
> attention.  But as a practical matter I would rather be
> bright and alive
> than minimally legal and dead.
> 
> So I would encourage everyone to watch the video and
> "Get Visible".
> 
> 
> Ron Richings
> Vancouver, BC
> Canada
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
> [mailto:edelman at greenidea.eu] 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> First of all I sincerely admire all the work that went into
> making this
> video. It was cheesy on purpose, but that did not distract
> from the serious
> message. It only emphasized it.
> 
> Unfortunately the message is totally confused. One of the
> worst things that
> any cycling advocate or activist can do is support more
> illumination then
> what is required by law in most places (front white
> headlight and reflector,
> rear red taillight and reflector, reflectors on the pedals,
> and reflectors
> on the spokes or reflectorised sidewalls on the tyres --
> practically an
> international standard if we just work at it a little
> harder). All of these
> extra decorations are lovely - though perhaps some of it is
> not particularly
> eco-friendly to manufacture - but by conflating what is
> generally required
> with all the other stuff the video proposes an unreasonable
> amount of
> responsibility for the cyclist for his or her own safety.
> 
> Moreover, if one cyclist is "lit up like a Christmas
> tree" and another
> cyclist nearby is not, the latter becomes relatively
> invisible! This also
> applies in general, over time,  i.e. if a driver gets used
> to cyclists
> glowing like a discotheque then they will not see the
> others. 
> Next thing that will happen is that wearing something like
> a reflective vest
> becomes required. It is similar to what happens with
> helmets, and some of us
> know too well how this can throw a spanner in the works of
> a proposed public
> bike programme (e.g. in Vancouver.).
> 
> Also, reflectors are not designed to help pedestrians see
> cyclists.
> 
> Everyone wants to protect themselves and their loved ones -
> I think that
> mandatory vests and helmets for children is worth
> considering - but this
> hyperillumination is selfish and just hurts the others who
> are not so lit
> up. Banning private cars in cities is the only sustainable
> solution, but the
> real issues of any car reformation programme include speed,
> the weight of
> cars, the hardness of bonnets and windscreens, and all the
> things a driver
> can legally do in their car while moving, to name just a
> few.
> 
> So I propose that the fine folks in BC take their video off
> the web before
> the lessons it tries to teach kill or injure someone, and
> either do one
> featuring only what is required by law, or on the other
> side of the coin:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE> or
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzbc1uUcXA> and then
> we would need not to
> change the lyrics too much.
> 
> - T
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------- 
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss
> messages via YAHOOGROUPS. 
> 
> Please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to
> join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership
> rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and
> 'members' there cannot post to the real
> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem
> like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
> 
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of
> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a
> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').